What would a league without a union look like?

Almost immeadiately, players would get more money, but league parity would be destroyed.

Over time, the league would be divided into the "large market teams" (the "haves") with stacked teams and the "small market teams" (the "have nots") teams full of 3rd and fourth liners. Fans of the disenfranchised teams would realize how utterly hopeless it is, stop caring, and move on.

Eventually those teams would fold and the players would lose jobs.

So basically, in the long run: the players lose, the owners lose, and the fans lose.

Its basically what it is now. Teams like the Islanders, Oilers, Panthers, Jets, Bluejackets have no hope. Look at how bad the Oilers and Islanders are year in and year out. Besides that fluke run by the Oilers, they have been a sorry ass team and same with the Islanders.

The truth is, modern-day unions are a boon to management. Management continues to employ shills to feign otherwise, and the masses eat this up. But unions provide stability and actually serve to reduce work stoppages.

But there is no precedence in this case, only theory and projection. IF it goes to court then all leagues will finally have a precedence to go off of.

And it's not that hard from a legal standpoint to make the argument that if a union decertifies then all contracts to all union members are null and void. The union negotiated the CBA, the CBA set the terms for their contracts, there is no current CBA so the contracts cannot be enforced, if the union goes away then there cannot legally be a CBA so there for any contracts that adhere to a CBA wouldn't be legal. Ergo, all current contracts would be illegal and therefore removed.

its a lot more easier for the union to argue that each contract was negotiated between a player with his agent with 1 team and he got market value... plus unless there contract states the contract is voided incase of no union its hard to argue that it should be.

The NHL has a lot harder time in this case then the players do, but we don't know what will happen it all comes down to the judge. My whole problem with that guys post is he did not post a source names or anything and tried to say something that he has no evedidence to support. He claims to be a law student yet he wants to make such a shady claim that's just funny

its a lot more easier for the union to argue that each contract was negotiated between a player with his agent with 1 team and he got market value... plus unless there contract states the contract is voided incase of no union its hard to argue that it should be.

The NHL has a lot harder time in this case then the players do, but we don't know what will happen it all comes down to the judge. My whole problem with that guys post is he did not post a source names or anything and tried to say something that he has no evedidence to support. He claims to be a law student yet he wants to make such a shady claim that's just funny

The claim isn't shady as it's a prediction other law professionals have predicted, and there are others who have predicted differently. Neither are right or wrong until the situation actually goes to court and a judgement is handed down.

If there's no union, and all of the contracts are voided, the NHL will suspend operations until they put a union in place.

The NHL doesn't legally have the power to do that. If the 30 teams were to act in collusion to try and dictate labour terms, you'd have one heck of anti-trust lawsuit filed by some very wealthy and powerful individuals.

It would be up to each individual team to decide they don't want to be in operation... and I suspect none of the 30 owners in the league are dumb enough to throw away the $4b in combined equity that the 30 teams have.

The claim isn't shady as it's a prediction other law professionals have predicted, and there are others who have predicted differently. Neither are right or wrong until the situation actually goes to court and a judgement is handed down.

Yes I understand that but he claimed 2 things that had no backing.. 1 he is a law student 2nd he talked to people from the nhl law firm and nhlpa law firms without stating any names... he Is trying 2 give more credit to his statement by stating both which is pretty shady claim 2 make.

But there is no precedence in this case, only theory and projection. IF it goes to court then all leagues will finally have a precedence to go off of.

And it's not that hard from a legal standpoint to make the argument that if a union decertifies then all contracts to all union members are null and void. The union negotiated the CBA, the CBA set the terms for their contracts, there is no current CBA so the contracts cannot be enforced, if the union goes away then there cannot legally be a CBA so there for any contracts that adhere to a CBA wouldn't be legal. Ergo, all current contracts would be illegal and therefore removed.

There are numerous legal precendents in this case:

Brown v. Pro Football, Inc. is perhaps the most direct and notable. The court has held that labor law provides a non-statutory exemption from anti-trust laws.

Brown v. Pro Football, Inc. is perhaps the most direct and notable. The court has held that labor law provides a non-statutory exemption from anti-trust laws.

Brown v. Pro Football has little to do with the current situation. It just extended the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption to cover terms imposed after an Impasse.

The timeline of NFL cases:

Mackey v NFL (1976): threw out the Rozelle rule, ruling it was not the product of bona fide armís-length collective bargaining. It set out the three prong test used to determine the extent of the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption.

1) the restraint on trade must primarily affect only the parties to the collective bargaining agreement;
2) the agreement must concern a mandatory subject of collective bargaining; and
3) the agreement must be the product of bona fide armís-length bargaining.

Powell v NFL (1989): held that the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption still holds after the expiration of a CBA, even after an Impasse was declared. It was after Powell that the NFLPA disclaimed and began the McNeil case.

McNiel v NFL (1992): Judge Doty rules that the NFL is no longer protected by the Non-Statutory Exemption and allows a jury trial. Jury awards damages.

Brown v Pro Football (1996): Upholds that the Non Statutory Exemption applies to terms imposed after an Impasse.

Of course, none of these precedents -except Judge Doty's trial court ruling are applicable if the NHLPA disclaims/decertifies.

Those three got there big salaries in a no cap, free'er market NHL. The same thing would happen to the stars or so players think are stars.

Crosby/Ovy/Stamkos would all make more. Montreal/Toronto would bid like crazy for any 18 year old super kid on the market.

The EPL, no union for players and they get 70% of revenue. Of coarse there are only 5 teams that matter.

A capless system works better for a relegation system like the EPL. There are over a hundred leagues (not teams, LEAGUES) in their pyramid system and struggling for promotion or against relegation makes every contest exciting for a fan of a local team. Not so well for a franchise system, where being a perennial loser just means the possibility of a declining fanbase and folding.

Its basically what it is now. Teams like the Islanders, Oilers, Panthers, Jets, Bluejackets have no hope. Look at how bad the Oilers and Islanders are year in and year out. Besides that fluke run by the Oilers, they have been a sorry ass team and same with the Islanders.

I disagree with that. There are some very promising young players on those teams.
Within the last 10 years, the Penguins and Blackhawks had teams with strings of sub-500 seasons, and seemed to be hopeless.

Brown v. Pro Football has little to do with the current situation. It just extended the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption to cover terms imposed after an Impasse.

The timeline of NFL cases:

Mackey v NFL (1976): threw out the Rozelle rule, ruling it was not the product of bona fide arm’s-length collective bargaining. It set out the three prong test used to determine the extent of the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption.

1) the restraint on trade must primarily affect only the parties to the collective bargaining agreement;
2) the agreement must concern a mandatory subject of collective bargaining; and
3) the agreement must be the product of bona fide arm’s-length bargaining.

Powell v NFL (1989): held that the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption still holds after the expiration of a CBA, even after an Impasse was declared. It was after Powell that the NFLPA disclaimed and began the McNeil case.

McNiel v NFL (1992): Judge Doty rules that the NFL is no longer protected by the Non-Statutory Exemption and allows a jury trial. Jury awards damages.

Brown v Pro Football (1996): Upholds that the Non Statutory Exemption applies to terms imposed after an Impasse.

Of course, none of these precedents -except Judge Doty's trial court ruling are applicable if the NHLPA disclaims/decertifies.

I agree with the first paragraph in bold. However, I find the Supreme Court's last paragraph in Brown leaves little wiggle room for the NHL... It's in 3 parts:

1- In some cases, the antitrust exemption doesn't apply.

"Our holding is not intended to insulate from antitrust review every joint imposition of terms by employers, for an agreement among employers could be sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances from the collective-bargaining process that a rule permitting antitrust intervention would not significantly interfere with that process."

2-The Supreme Court then suggests two cases where it wouldn't apply.

2.1- Decertification

"See, e. g., 50 F. 3d, at 1057 (suggesting that exemption lasts until collapse of the collective-bargaining relationship, as evidenced by decertification of the union);

"We need not decide in this case whether, or where, within these extreme outer boundaries to draw that line. Nor would it be appropriate for us to do so without the detailed views of the Board, to whose "specialized judgment" Congress "intended to leave" many of the "inevitable questions concerning multiemployer bargaining bound to arise in the future." Buffalo Linen, 353 U. S., at 96 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Jewel Tea, 381 U. S., at 710, n. 18."

Then there's the issue it affirms a Court of Appeal Judgment that included the following...

"In our view, the nonstatutory labor exemption requires employees involved in a labor dispute to choose whether to invoke the protections of the NLRA or the Sherman Act. If employees wish to seek the protections of the Sherman Act, they may forego unionization or even decertify their unions. We note that the NFL players took exactly this latter step after the Eighth Circuit's Powell decision. See Releasing Superstars, supra, at 883 (describing NFLPA decertification after Powell )... We do not mean to encourage this practice, but we believe that employees, like all other economic actors, must make choices. If they choose to avail themselves of the advantages of the collective bargaining process, their protections are as defined by the federal labor laws. "

Teams that deserve a quality roster will have one. Teams that don't won't. The disease of parity would be cured and hockey would be presented at the highest possible quality in markets that actually want to see it. Owners that choose to invest in quality and market that quality wisely would reap the rewards of profit. Those owners who fail to present quality will drown in their own incompetence.

Its basically what it is now. Teams like the Islanders, Oilers, Panthers, Jets, Bluejackets have no hope. Look at how bad the Oilers and Islanders are year in and year out. Besides that fluke run by the Oilers, they have been a sorry ass team and same with the Islanders.

thats a terrible analogy. those teams are bad due to terrible management and player development.

So, you would lose 18 teams with ~ an average value of 150 million $.
You would also lose about 450 NHL players jobs.
You would also lose numerous minor league jobs.
I can't see too many people happy with that business model.